So, by GDP I'm gonna guess that North Korea is number one?

Seriously folks, wars will always have to be fought. It's nice that you can hope for a time of total peace, but I'm pretty sure that's a no go. I always prefer the peaceful solution, but sometimes war is a necessary tragedy. And the US is managing to do it with minimal loss of civilian life. It's ridiculous to say that we'll ever reach a zero number there, but it's certainly better than it was even 12 years ago. I know, easy for me to say, those bombs aren't dropping on my house, eh?

I ascend

Humans are not easily driven into "violence" They need to be convinced or duped and molded into the handy tool that constitutes a soldier, Instruments of aggression through extensive training.


Political choices of aggresive policies is not in any way charateristic of the human psyche.

however they tend to capitalize on the fact that humans put in the context of chaotic violence will defend and do everything to get out of harms way.

To label the human species violent is to use deterministic ignorance, and impose the notion that homo sapiens sapiens lack free will.

I disagree. Humans, left alone, do not blossom into objects of peace and harmony. That's silly idealism. I'll leave it at that.

I ascend

even ghettos have churches.

(Insert witticism here)

hmm to generalize on the grounds of poor argumenting, not taking into account basic social psychologic theory and other perspectives in psychology and sociology will not yield any plausbile explanations or rational argument.


I recomend you start reading; Violence and terrorism by Wolfgang Sofsky before you curse mankind in the domains of dysthophy.

This will however illuminate things since he´s proposing that violence have been the function of our reaction to our own mortality, this is violence pure and simple in phenomenological sense through history and up to the present date.

Then put that qulitative litteral research into perspective and compare it to contemporary psychological theories about violence, bring the picture up from the atomistic levels up to sociological levels into a social and politcal context and then draw your conclusion.

It the shorsighted interval of behavior we are indeed animals, but with reason and free will and prospective thinking along with highly sophisticated cognitive functions we are miles apart from any atavistic beast.

Actually, Shadoth, there is no meaningful connection between the level of spending on military-industrial boondoggles and protecting US troops. Unsurprisingly, this is because the money goes to military technology via the private sector, and the motivation of the private sector is always profit. So there's massive featherbedding. So there's an obsession with big ticket items that look good and cost millions but don't necessarily protect personnel very well. The profit motive also provides an incentive to cover up problems with weapons systems (e.g. the Patriot.) Old and effective systems (e.g the A-10 Warthog) get junked in favour of new expensive equipment that makes money for the arms industry and photo opportunities for the politicians, soon to be consultants for the arms industry, to the detriment of the troops.

The other problem with the private arms industry is that they sell to other countries. This justifies further funding for updated systems to deal with the weapons your arms industry just sold to potential enemies. Amusingly, this trade would have been publicly subsidised at every stage - research, marketing, export guarantees; indeed, most of the customers are buying with funds received as military aid.

I won't buy into the arguement about whether H. Sapiens is intrinsically warlike - essentially it's another faith-based debate. And I could question whether communities set up in circumstances that lacked long-term viability really deserve saving through military Keynesianism (or anything - such as the USA's burgeoning prison-industrial complex) but this is already too long.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadoth:
I disagree. Humans, left alone, do not blossom into objects of peace and harmony. That's silly idealism. I'll leave it at that.

---

Groups of humans left alone do in fact leave nice
and relatively peaceful lives. Eventually population
pressures produce some level of encroachment upon
each group's territories, after which conflict will
occur. Usually the conflict is caused by either a
dispute over resources or some level of ideological
disagreement. No duping or convincing is necessary.

At least, this is what the prehistoric American
evidence suggests.

It occurs to me that at some point a large enough group will split and start having the problems of encroaching on resources and/or ideological disagreement that Marshdrifter describes. How large a group is too large, I wonder. Off the top of my head I would say about 100 people is nearly the maximum, but I could be completely wrong on that. Any informed opinions?

________
You have to give up.

Um... I wasn't necessarily describing one group so
much as neighboring groups from differing cultures.
As populations increase, the social complexity
increases, but that doesn't necessarily cause them
to split apart and fight each other.* Copán reached
a population of 10000 around A.D. 800. They fought
other city states (iir my Maya history correctly),
but didn't split apart to fight each other. I live
in a city of 8000. No civil wars here (wait till
November ).

No, I'm thinking more of neighboring ethnicities
getting along until there's some sort of
encroachment of ideas/resources. Often, the
resource is most likely the causal factor. In the
prehistoric American southwest, differing
ethnicities lived together for a considerable time,
but warfare only broke out upon a climatic change
that reduced the amount of arable land. This, at
least, is Jonathan Haas' (1999) description of
the prehistoric southwest and it strikes me as
perhaps a tad on the neo-Rousseauian side of the
argument, especially with Turner's argument for
ritual cannibalism. Then again, this isn't my area
of expertise and it's not a totally illogical argument.

In the eastern woodlands (essentially everything
east of the Mississippi River), it looks a little
different with more conflict with less population
density. I'm currently thinking this is a
reflection of the lack of intensive agriculture.
The development of internecine warfare does seem
to coincide with the development of bow and arrow
technology, which greatly enables the ability to
raid. I'm not sure it's possible to determine
whether the bow and arrow technology was a product
of these groups jonesing for a fight or whether
the raiding was just a byproduct.

The raiding seems to often be a sort of resource
related conflict between differing ethnic groups.
It's not really designed for wiping out the other
groups so much as a warning that any attempt to
enter a groups territory will result in a few lost
heads. OTOH, the Iroquois were known to have made
war on somewhat larger scale, taking prisoners and
pressing them into military service. This has been
explained as a product of population pressures
caused by the European settlers, but I'm not so
sure.

um... shit... this is getting to be a bit too much
like work. Anybody still awake?

I've been trying to decide whether I should read
my new copy of Odell's new lithic analysis book or
finish Keeley's prehistoric warfare book. Looks
like Keeley is winning this one.


*note: I'm talking about warfare and not individual violence (i.e. homicide).

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobW:
Actually, Shadoth, there is no meaningful connection between the level of spending on military-industrial boondoggles and protecting US troops.

---

I have to disagree. Featherbedding and corruption are prevalent in most armies, and usually is more prevalent when the whole military-weapon industry is nationalized. Yes, only a small fraction of that quarter of a million reaches the soldier, but it is still much more than the opposition will have.

Also, there is a basic cost beyond which you can improve your weapons, and most countries do not reach it, just buying weapons ready made from abroad. So actual advanced warmongering equipment is made in a few countries, and at least two of them require war to continue working as now, considering the impact in their GDP, and the impact of their weapon sales (North Korea, with a whooping third of the GDP tied in war, and Israel).

And people with your own weapons can be dangerous, but predictable. US made weaponry has been notoriously unable to damage US equipment, specially the missiles. One wonders what they forget to include in the export packs of ECM and ECCM systems. Did you wonder why the afghans had so much luck shooting down USSR helicopters, and so little with US helicopters?

I agree however that the US, probably due to size, has a high tendency to develop towns wholly dependent on one employer. Does it happen also in Australia (even smaller population density)?

I will leave the anthropology of primitive warmaking to the professional, as my knowledge of war begins later, when organized states already made organized war.

José

Actually I find it very interesting Marshdrifter, but maybe that's because I know almost nothing about it.

________
You have to give up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JRE:
So I would agree being an USA soldier is much safer than any other nationality...

---

The safest soldiers are the ones that don't go to war. The US seems very keen to send its soldiers into war, so I don't think that makes them safe.

Other people here have talked about the "economic draft" and how the army paid for their father-in-laws education etc. I find the acceptance of this system quite bizarre. In most other civilised countries if you want to become a teacher, a doctor or a nurse, or follow any form of further education, the government pays for it and then recoups the money from the higher taxes paid by the graduate. Where as in the US, it seems unless you are rich to begin with, in order to get an education you have to meet some quota for a scholarship, or join the army.

I noticed when Pt Jessica Lynch was asked why she joined the army, she said it was because she wanted to be a teacher. So to become a teacher, she has to work for the army?

It's a sorry state where soldiers are valued higher than teachers and medics.

Marshdrifter, indeed social conflict theory and geopolical struggles for resources are indeed THE source for human conflict in macroperspective. This is politics in action as seen throughout history.

However one big issue is conflict solving in general within human societys where differences are mostly settled with reasonable utilaristic motives, to avoid the chaos and mayhem that constitutes wars. So in culture where violence is not statemonopolized, revenge and vendettas are generally used as means to solve "issues",creating "subcultures" of violence. (Island) (Sicily) (Albania), an eye for an eye and so on, to contain the spreading of violence in the atomistic level.

When stability arises from state reppresive measures where violence is monopolized and used to subordinate people in the legal system, backed up with police and military strenght these "subcultures" of violence are diffused, and state enforcement fills the void.

But the fact remains that human violece needs to be seen with in the social, cultural and politcal context and the fight for geopolitical domains and resources, not carved in stone, These are all politcal choices and not in any way the only solution to conflicts. To bring the disscussion from the "inherit" or "natural instincts" pseudo pscyhobiological explenations level will serve the purpose of better understanding and framing of problem, putting it in a socialrealistic context. Neither will the projection of "social darwinism" serve as explenation model of, this will infact contradict human "civilisation" and leave the free will entangled in deterministic mumbo jumbo.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marshdrifter:
Groups of humans left alone do in fact leave nice
and relatively peaceful lives. Eventually population
pressures produce some level of encroachment upon
each group's territories, after which conflict will
occur. Usually the conflict is caused by either a
dispute over resources or some level of ideological
disagreement. No duping or convincing is necessary.

---

I agree! Now do the math:

The Marshdrifter Thesis + International Trade + Global Media (showing everyone around the world how much they don't have) = The Shadoth Thesis

I think we're really all on the same page here. Some of us are just stuck in more pleasant times in history.

--------"Somebody hits me, I'm going to hit him back. Even if it does look like he hasn't eaten in a while." -Charles Barkley

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kradlum:
Where as in the US, it seems unless you are rich to begin with, in order to get an education you have to meet some quota for a scholarship, or join the army...

---

Hmmm, I'm American, I'm not rich, I'm legally a white guy, yet I didn't pay a dime for my education until grad school. Oh well, I'm probably the only exception. We all know how few people go to college in the U.S. It's like the Wild Wild West here, after all.

quote:

---

It's a sorry state where soldiers are valued higher than teachers and medics.

---

And there I'll just have to disagree. Call me sentimental, but I'd rather pay a soldier more than I paid a teacher or EMT. Harder work, more danger, each individual has a more direct positive impact on society. Yep, I'd like to say we valued our soldiers more highly than our teachers and medics, but I think if you bothered to check salaries, you'd see we don't.

--------"Somebody hits me, I'm going to hit him back. Even if it does look like he hasn't eaten in a while." -Charles Barkley

And before I forget--

All men accounted for and ready for inspection, SIR!

--------"Somebody hits me, I'm going to hit him back. Even if it does look like he hasn't eaten in a while." -Charles Barkley

Yeah, see, we're not really disagreeing here at all. So, what Splitcoil said.

Also, I really enjoyed Marshdrifter's post. I can read stuff like that for hours. I had trouble in college because, instead of doing my assigned reading, I was packing in books about the mesoamerican ball game and the popol vuh, stuff like that. Fun.

Btw, I think I've mentioned this, but I hate ketchup.

I ascend

Hey, Splitcoil, you want to flame, or what? That's chili ketchup!

Now, seriously, the attitude towards Education is one of the big differences between Western Europe and the USA. Around here, almost anyone believe it is their right to go to the University and get a diploma, unless they really want to make money and become a plumber. In the USA, you become a plumber (or a soldier) so you can make your civil engineering courses.

With such a different view on the duties of the state, it is no wonder we have so many difficulties communicating.

Now, soldiers image will be inextricably linked to the state they serve, and what it makes them do. So if soldiers have a bad image, whose fault it is?

José

quote:

---

Originally posted by Splitcoil:
The Marshdrifter Thesis + International Trade + Global Media (showing everyone around the world how much they _don't_ have) = The Shadoth Thesis

---

To some extent I agree, although I think it's
possible that the cultural exchanges seen within
globalization will reach a sort of "equilibrium"
where warfare won't necessarily happen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Splitcoil:
Hmmm, I'm American, I'm not rich, I'm legally a white guy, yet I didn't pay a dime for my education until grad school. Oh well, I'm probably the only exception. We all know how few people go to college in the U.S. It's like the Wild Wild West here, after all.

---

Now you're putting words into my mouth.

quote:

---

Call me sentimental, but I'd rather pay a soldier more than I paid a teacher or EMT. Harder work, more danger, each _individual_ has a more direct positive impact on society

---

Obviously this is where we differ. If you think a grunt digging a latrine or a halfwit who can't follow a map does harder work than a teacher or nurse then teachers and nurses in the US must be different from the rest of the world. Equally, if you think an individual soldier has a more positive impact on society than an educator or doctor, then there's no talking to you. You wouldn't have any soldiers if it weren't for the medics who brought them into the world and the educators who taught them how to read and write.

In the UK 2 types of people join the army - dumb rich kids join to become officers, dumb poor kids join to get off the streets. When the army is sent to a foreign country, the national IQ rises 2 points.